Will Ted Cruz Run for President in 2020? Leading Conservatives Already Thinking About It

Texas senator Ted Cruz was able to win 559 delegates in the Republican primaries before suspending his campaign on May 3, 2016. After Cruz’s supporters mourned the end of his campaign they started to ask the question: “What next?”

Nearly a month and a half later the answer is emerging. On Tuesday, June 14, The Hill reports, Cruz attended a private, confidential dinner with more than 20 top conservatives at the Virginia home of conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III, founder of the Media Research Center. Several other powerful conservative leaders were in attendance, including the Heritage Foundation’s president Jim DeMint, David McIntosh, the president of the Club for Growth, direct mail guru Richard Viguerie, Ken Blackwell, the former Republican mayor of Cincinnati and candidate for governor of Ohio, and the Susan B. Anthony List’s president Marjorie Dannenfelser.

The dinner was held to discuss Cruz’s future as well as the future of the conservative movement. The main topic of the night was how to position Cruz for the presidency in 2020 as he continues to champion the conservative movement as a senator.

Bozell downplayed the dinner, telling The Hill that “There was just discussion of the future of the movement and the future of Ted Cruz as the leader of the movement.” The newspaper also claimed that many of the leaders in attendance want Cruz to run for president again in 2020, comparing his campaign to that of Ronald Reagan’s first attempt at the presidency in 1976 when he lost the Republican nomination to Gerald Ford. Reagan continued to advocate for conservatism and came back to win the presidency in 1980,.

“I think [Cruz] earned the position of being the leader of the conservative movement in terms of an elected official,” Club For Growth’s McIntosh said. “Talking to him… I think he’s thinking about how to do that and ready to step into that leadership role.”

Cruz has not endorsed presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, and after this dinner suggests that he is focused on the future of the conservative movement as well as the possibility of a 2020 run for president. (For more from the author of “Will Ted Cruz Run for President in 2020? Leading Conservatives Already Thinking About It” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is Trump to the Left of the ACLU on Guns?

Donald Trump’s record on the Second Amendment has been mixed. Trump has supported the so-called “assault weapons” ban and favors a longer waiting period to buy a gun. Now he has taken it one step further and has come out in favor of banning weapons sales to people put on a no-fly list with no due process.

This is something that even the ACLU is against. That’s right, Trump is now to the left of the ACLU on guns.

Here’s what Trump said yesterday via tweet.

This is something that liberals have been pushing since the attacks in San Bernardino last year. At the time of the attack, the ACLU came out strongly against this position.

Last night, in response to last week’s tragic attack in San Bernardino, California, President Obama urged Congress to ensure that people on the No Fly List be prohibited from purchasing guns. Last week, Republicans in Congress defeated a proposal that would have done just that. “I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said.

There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform. As we will argue to a federal district court in Oregon this Wednesday, the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating.

That’s right. The liberal ACLU has come out against using the no-fly list, with its lack of due process, as a means to deprive citizens of their constitutional right to own a gun. Donald Trump is now officially to the left of the ACLU in that regard.

He has also been endorsed by the NRA. Who is still steadfastly against Trump’s suggestion.

Will the NRA rescind that endorsement? (For more from the author of “Is Trump to the Left of the ACLU on Guns?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Orlando Massacre Is Just the Beginning

What is the greatest lesson of the Orlando massacre, where a Muslim shooter killed at least 50 people at a homosexual night club—an event that is now considered the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the September 11 attacks of 2001? It’s that such an attack had to happen—and is destined to happen again. Why? Because the surest way of seeing an act occur repeatedly—say a terrorist attack—is to repeat all the same steps that precipitated and paved the way for it in the first place.

Consider: the shooter, Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, was “quite religious” and a pious Muslim (he attended mosque and prayed regularly); he clearly saw himself as a jihadi killing evildoers—he “recited prayers to Allah during the attack,” pledged this act to the Islamic State, and the latter claimed it—officialdom, as usual, is trying to obfuscate the Islamic role.

Despite all of the above and the fact that ISIS has repeatedly executed homosexuals, often videotaping it (see here), “FBI Special Agent Ron Hopper said the bureau was still working to determine whether sexual orientation was a motive in the Orlando attack.”

President Obama said what he often says after a Muslim goes on a rampage in the name of Islam: it’s still too early to know the “precise motivations of the killer.” Instead, Obama exploited the jihadi massacre as a springboard for his own gun-ban agenda, saying that access to “very powerful weapons very quickly” is “a problem regardless of their motivations.”

Still others are going as far as to blame this jihadi attack on American Christians and conservatives: “You know what is gross — your thoughts and prayers and Islamophobia after you created this anti-queer climate,” ACLU staff attorney Chase Strangio tweeted.

Then there’s the deliberate incompetence: Obama’s own purge of training materials and language deemed “hurtful” to Muslims is being cited as partially responsible for the FBI dropping the ball—so that the FBI would never “ever have guessed a LGBT club [would] be a target of an terrorist attack” Mateen was even on the FBI’s radar as a “person of interest” in 2013 and 2014—yet was free to buy guns and go on a murderous rampage in 2016.

Indeed, in this case at least, it appears that Islamophobia trumped homophobia: “Gilroy, a former Fort Pierce police officer, said Mateen frequently made homophobic and racial comments. Gilroy said he complained to his employer several times but it did nothing because he was Muslim.”

Finally, as with every Islamic terror attack on U.S. soil, the media is again warning against that notorious wave of “reprisals” against the Muslim community that never manifests. Florida officials were quick to invite a Muslim cleric to address the media and “preempt a possible backlash against the Muslim community” (as opposed to the other Muslim cleric who openly taught in Orlando that Islam commands the execution of homosexuals). The Guardian “courageously” proclaimed, “Let’s not give in to fear after the Orlando shooting.”

Similarly, the head of the Jewish LGBTQ group, who expressed fears of a backlash against Muslims, redundantly pointed out that “We should remember not to blame all members of any other religion or political ideology for what one person does”—an admonition that fails to address who or what we should blame when countless upon countless members of one religion constantly and always engage in violent behavior.

To the careful observer, all of these reactions from liberals, leftist media, and the Obama administration are par for the course whenever a jihadi terror attack occurs on American soil: stout denial of any connection between the attack in question and Islamic teachings; cynically exploiting the attack to demonize conservatives, gun advocates, and “homophobic” Christians; and cries that any scrutiny into Islam is tantamount to a “backlash” against Muslims.

And it’s because all these reactions are standard that many more Islamic terrorist attacks are destined to occur on American soil. (For more from the author of “The Orlando Massacre Is Just the Beginning” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary’s Fallen Down Laughing and She Can’t Get Up

This here is some weapons-grade stupidity:

160614-hillary-fbi-investigation

Of course, being under a criminal FBI investigation apparently isn’t disqualifying for a presidential candidate. As long as said miscreant is a Democorat [sic intentional]. (For more from the author of “Hillary’s Fallen Down Laughing and She Can’t Get Up” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

US Being Destroyed by a Global Conspiracy: The Marriage of Convenience Between the Left and Radical Islam

In order to lessen the likelihood of terrorist attacks like Orlando, San Bernardino and the Boston Marathon and eliminate radical Islam as an existential threat to the United States, we must, first and foremost, defeat the prevailing Islamo-Marxist ideology within our own government and the willing accomplices who sustain it by willful blindness to the danger we face.

If you are still asking the question: how can Orlando happen?

Ask no more.

Stated simply, it is a sad truth that there are people in national leadership positions, who don’t want America to win or who don’t care much if we lose, as long as they can somehow preserve their own personal power and profit.

It is not a question of politics. It is an issue of patriotism.

The United States faces an assault by a global conspiracy, a marriage of convenience between two totalitarian ideologies, radical Islam and the political left. They have been brought together by the traits they share; their hatred of Western civilization and a commitment to the destruction of capitalistic, Judeo-Christian-based democracy.

In part, Orlando happens because the federal government practices Sharia, deliberately downplaying the menace of radical Islam and intentionally stripping law enforcement of its ability to directly counter the threat.

Kerry Picket of the Daily Caller asks: could the FBI’s purge of training material relating to Islamic terrorism have led to the agency dropping the ball on Florida nightclub shooter Omar Mateen?

The FBI’s training on handling possible Islamic terror suspects was turned upside down five years ago, when the Obama administration began a purge of training material that would remove references to Islam that Muslim subject matter experts, hired by the Justice Department, found offensive.

It is also fair question to ask, whether the conditions for and the handling of the Orlando attack were affected by the Obama Administration’s relentless attacks on the nation’s police officers and criminal-justice system, routinely and repeatedly charging that cops and the courts are awash in racial bias and Islamophobia?

The Islamic terrorist and registered Democrat Mateen was a US citizen of Afghan decent, who pledged his allegiance to ISIS and between 2011 and 2012 traveled to Saudi Arabia for Umrah, a Muslim religious pilgrimage. He was investigated by the FBI in 2013 and 2014 for inflammatory statements and his link to Moner Mohammad Abu Salha, an American radical who traveled to Syria and committed a suicide bombing.

Yet, according to recent reports, Mateen was a repeat visitor at Orlando gay nightclub before his killing spree, occasionally got drunk, may have been gay and used the gay dating and chat application Jack’d.

In the apple not falling far from the tree department, Seddique Mir Mateen, the father of the mass murderer, is a supporter of the Afghan Taliban with his own internet program, where he made radical anti-LGBT statements.

Was the murderer Mateen’s motive religious or political or both? Does it matter? I don’t think so.

In part, Orlando happens because radical Islam thinks it is winning. How many ISIS recruits would there be if they were doing the dying instead of us?

Practically speaking, the religious extremism and brutality of ISIS is not unlike that of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

At the onset of World War II, the ordinary American Marine and soldier were unprepared for the fanaticism and cruelty of the Japanese Army.

Eugene B. Sledge, in his celebrated memoir “With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa,” describes one instance in which he and a comrade came across the mutilated bodies of three Marines, butchered with severed genitals stuffed into their mouths.

An ideology is a system of ideas, but ideas don’t kill people, Islamists kill people.

You may not be able to eradicate an ideology, but you can certainly exterminate those who violently wield that ideology against you.

Like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the ideology of radical Islam has little chance to thrive, if there are few left eager to practice it.

It also obviates the need for winning any hearts and minds. (For more from the author of “US Being Destroyed by a Global Conspiracy: The Marriage of Convenience Between the Left and Radical Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Is How Democracy Dies

The attacks on Trump supporters at a rally in San Jose last week were another example of the left’s violent assaults on free speech and association. Before the election there is likely to be more thuggery, as an emboldened left lets slip their dogs of war to foment disorder to continue Obama’s aim to “fundamentally transform” America. As the long history of political philosophy teaches, this undermining of law by violence is an important sign of democracy’s impending doom.

Over 2100 years ago, the Greek historian Polybius described how democracy dies:

So when [the rich] begin to hanker after office, and find that they cannot achieve it through their own efforts or on their merits, they begin to seduce and corrupt the people in every possible way, and thus ruin their estates. The result is that through their senseless craving for prominence they stimulate among the masses both an appetite for bribes and the habit of receiving them, and then the rule of democracy is transformed into government by violence and strong-arm methods. By this time the people have become accustomed to feed at the expense of others, and their prospects of winning a livelihood depend upon the property of their neighbors, and as soon as they find a leader who is sufficiently ambitious and daring . . . they introduce a regime based on violence.

It takes only a few revisions reflecting the modern world to see how closely Polybius’s analysis describes how the ideology and policy of the progressives are degrading America’s democratic republic.

First, the progressives have “seduced and corrupted” the people not, like the aspiring tyrants of old, by spending their own money, but by redistributing the property of other citizens via the 16th Amendment, which instituted the federal income tax. Over the next century the funds appropriated by the IRS have financed the “bribes” for the people: the various social welfare programs and transfers that relentlessly have escalated in number, scope, and cost––in 2014 these programs ate up two-thirds of the federal budget.

These transfers have indeed “stimulated” both the “appetite” of the people for even more government programs, and the “habit” of receiving them. That is why today the biggest problem facing our economy––the unsustainable entitlement spending that threatens in decades to gobble up every dollar collected by the feds––got only cursory attention in all the speeches of the presidential candidates from both parties. Indeed, the Democrats want to create even more programs and spend even more money on these “bribes.”

More insidious is the progressive update of “government by violence and strong-arm methods.” Rather than physical violence, we have the regulatory regime that Tocqueville predicted, one which “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate.” Both parties have been guilty of feeding this regulatory cancer, but Obama has blown past all previous records. In 2015 just under 82,000 pages of rules and proposed rules were published, an all-time high. In his last year, Obama is pushing 4000 new regulations covering every dimension of business and private life. As a result, the freedom of citizens and businesses alike is diminished, subjected to the tyranny of executive agencies staffed by anonymous, unelected, and unaccountable functionaries.

Then there is the cultural violence, the tyranny of political correctness that has encouraged the tantrums of privileged “snowflake” college students who demand “safe spaces” and the punishment of “microagressions,” and are eager to use the state’s police and judicial power to silence those who challenge their ideology. Government, media, schools, and popular culture all practice self-censorship in order to mollify these budding tyrants, at the cost of everybody else’s freedom. We may not be threatened by the physical violence that ancient tyrants used to enforce their authority, but these regulations and informal speech codes are in the end backed by the coercive power of the state, which can sue, fine, and imprison those who fall afoul of their regime of rules.

Thus we resemble the degeneration of democracy into tyranny described by Polybius. We have become a people who are “accustomed to feed at the expense of others,” and who live under a “regime based on violence” inflicted by a bloated federal government. And no matter how “soft” the despotism, nonetheless its concentrated and expanded power diminishes our freedom and autonomy.

Other insights of Polybius are as pertinent now as they were in the 2nd century B.C. What better description of Hillary can you find than “a senseless craving for prominence,” “sufficiently ambitious and daring,” or a “hanker[ing] for office” that lies beyond her “merits”? Her relentless ambition has been obvious for 25 years, and her promises to follow in Obama’s footsteps and double-down on the entitlement state and its regulatory tyranny are the “bribes” she is relying on to win the presidency. And what makes this ambition “senseless” and “daring” is her lack of any qualities of character or record of achievements that would qualify her to be president. Like the tyrants of ancient Greece––disaffected aristocrats who believed they were entitled by birth to rule over the ignorant, low-born masses––Hillary’s only claim to the presidency is her status as a princess instead of a prince of the Democrat Party’s elite.

More troublesome is the physical violence that has attended Trump’s rallies, and that may escalate in the months ahead, recalling the thugs and gangs that stalked the city-states of ancient Greece and elections in Rome during the last days of the Republic. Of course, such violence has marred American politics in the past, but the country and its culture have changed radically in the last few decades. In 1968, when the new left incited violence at the Democrat convention, the Democrat mayor of Chicago and the Democrat political establishment forcefully condemned the riot. George Meany, head of the AFL-CIO and Democrat Party stalwart, called the protesters a “dirty-necked and dirty-mouthed group of kooks.”

Those sorts of Democrats have nearly disappeared, and the leftists of 1968 have transformed the party. They and their epigones have infiltrated the media, popular culture, and most important the schools and universities. Most are a peculiarly wimpy sort of leftist, whining about “microagressions” and “safe spaces” from the tony precincts of prestigious universities. But they still vote and wield enormous influence. And they are reinforced by the progressive Brown Shirts who instigate violence at Trump’s events. Worse yet, the Democrat establishment has been indifferent to such violence, issuing generic condemnations as a preface to blaming it all on Donald Trump, as Hillary did after the San Jose violence, or the mayor of San Jose did when he said, “At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign.”

So are we approaching an election reminiscent of Polybius’ analysis of democracy’s demise? Will we see increasing violence at both parties’ conventions, as the minions of wannabe tyrants up the ante in order to further their ambitions for even more government control at the expense of individual freedom? Will the people ultimately decide they’d rather continue to “feed at the expense of others” than to be free citizens taking responsibility for their lives? Finally, will our already weakened democracy come closer to breathing its last? (For more from the author of “This Is How Democracy Dies” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Nihilism: That Word Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means Mr. President

In a televised response to the Orlando shooting following a security briefing Monday, President Obama rambled for nearly 20 minutes only mentioning “Islam” once, and in a passive voice.

The president did, however, cite “radical nihilistic organizations” as a cause of terrorist attacks.

Either the president completely misunderstands the nature of ISIS and Al-Qaeda or he legitimately does not know what “nihilism” means.

For good measure, here is a definition of the philosophy – Nihilism: “the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.”

The Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, certainly was not a nihilist. He believed deeply in Islam, and even called the police early Sunday morning to pledge his allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. But President Obama will do anything to avoid saying “radical Islamic terrorism.”

(For more from the author of “Nihilism: That Word Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means Mr. President” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

4 Reasons Why We Need Another 9/11 Commission After Orlando

How many red flags does it take to see that Islamist-related terror is increasing?

In the past seven months there have been high-profile terror attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, and in Orlando.

In the U.S. the number and frequency of Islamist plots has been growing. Before Orlando, the U.S. alone has been the target of at least 85 Islamist-related terrorist plots since Sept. 11, 2001.

The attack in Orlando is the 22nd plot since 2015. To put this increase in perspective, more than a quarter of domestic terror plots in the U.S. since 2001 have occurred in the last 18 months.

With this serious threat not diminishing, it is time for a nonpartisan sober assessment of the threat of terrorism to the United States.

Fourteen years ago, President George W. Bush and Congress set up the 9/11 Commission to look at the attacks of 2001. Now it is time for Congress to convene another report. The horrific terrorist attack in Orlando only reinforces that it is past time for this.

Here are four main reasons why:

1. The threat has changed. When the 9/11 Commission looked at the threat of terrorism in 2010, the face of terrorism looked very different then it does today. Back then the U.S. was principally focused on al-Qaeda, rather than the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

Today, the transnational terrorist threat has rebounded, and the clear breakpoint for this was in 2010. One of the indicators is the flood of foreign fighters moving around the world.

2. What we are doing now isn’t working. In 2010, the Obama administration embarked on a counterterrorism strategy ill-suited to deal with present threats. It is obviously not working.

It is therefore time for a fresh, nonpartisan appraisal of what works and what doesn’t.

3. The Obama administration has lost credibility on this issue. In January my colleague Jim Phillips noted that:

The Obama administration’s lack of a sense of urgency in the face of the ISIS onslaught has been breathtaking. The president even proclaimed the day before the Nov. 13 Paris terrorist attacks that ISIS was contained.

The immediate angry reaction many American’s expressed to President Barack Obama’s statement on the Orlando attack points to the growing distrust many have with how his administration has responded to the threat of global terrorism.

4. The 9/11 Commission worked. The commission’s hearings and findings helped Americans understand the nature of the global terrorist threat. The final report became a national bestseller—and with good reason.

The commission delivered a frank, credible, nonpartisan assessment.

Arguably, there is an even great need for such clarity now. Americans are more confused, divided, frustrated, and uncertain about how to deal with transnational terrorism than they were a decade ago. (For more from the author of “4 Reasons Why We Need Another 9/11 Commission After Orlando” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

CLINTON CASH COMIX: Helpfully Illustrated for Democrats and the Mentally Deficient, but I Repeat Myself

Courtesy of our summer intern @BiffSpackle:

150623-clinton-cash-comix-012

150623-clinton-cash-comix-020

(For more from the author of “CLINTON CASH COMIX: Helpfully Illustrated for Democrats and the Mentally Deficient, but I Repeat Myself” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Was the Orlando Gunman Really a Lone Wolf?

A shooting by a lone Muslim gunman at an Orlando gay nightclub, which has left at least 50 people dead and dozens more injured, has been called an “act of terrorism” by law enforcement agencies.

The shooter, Omar Mateen, opened fire on hundreds of people at Pulse nightclub, then took hostages until police crashed an armored vehicle into the building and killed him in a gunfight. Mateen was a U.S.-born citizen, whose parents were born in Afghanistan. According to law enforcement officials, Mateen had been “on the radar” of U.S. officials for some time.

The FBI says it is looking at all angles to find a motive. “We do have suggestions that that individual may have leanings towards that particular ideology [Islamic extremism]. But right now we can’t say definitively, so we’re still running everything around,” said Ron Hopper, FBI assistant agent in charge of the FBI’s Tampa division.

The immediate reaction from many news pundits has been to downplay any possible connections to radical Islamism. As often happens after these terrorist attacks, including those in Paris and San Bernardino, pundits and politicians are quick to point out that a “lone wolf” doesn’t necessarily get direct orders from ISIS. They focus on the “hate crime” angle or the need for gun control instead of putting the attack in the context of a global jihad.

Just this morning on Fox News Sunday, columnist George Will, indignant of any suggestion at this time that the attack was motivated by Islamic extremism, said the idea of international terrorists giving Mateen directives to shoot up a gay nightclub was preposterous.

Will, like so many others, are simply perpetuating ignorance when it comes to how lone wolves operate. As has been outlined by the Institute for the Study of War, ISIS has a global strategy to carry out attacks against infidels, and lone wolves are essential to that strategy.

This was made clear in 2014 when the chief spokesman for the Islamic State called on supporters throughout the world to act on their own initiative to attack Western targets.

As reported by McClatchy DC in June 2014, Islamic State spokesman Abu Mohammed al Adnani “vowed that the group would kill Western men and enslave their women even as he accused the Western news media of distortion by inaccurately portraying the group as violent.”

“If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way, however it may be,” Adnani said, according to an English translation posted online by al Furqan Media, the communications arm of the Islamic State.

“Do not ask for anyone’s advice and do not seek anyone’s verdict,” he said. “Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling.”

A similar directive was later given to women throughout the world. As I reported at The Federalist after the San Bernardino terrorist attack, guidelines had been released by Islamic State leaders, saying they “can fight without the permission of others.”

Counterterrorism expert Sebastian Gorka has pointed out repeatedly that there is really no such thing as a lone wolf—that they’re actually “known wolves.”

It’s time to “ditch” the “lone wolf” label, Gorka told Fox News, because it obscures the ideology that ties all independent American jihadists together.

“This is a global network of jihadi activists,” Dr. Gorka explained, noting that the “lone wolf” label– applied to a number of Islamist shooters, from Fort Hood’s Nidal Hasan to Chattanooga’s Mohammad Abdulazeez–“is designed to make us think these are sporadic, disconnected individuals– they’re not.” The label “is designed to disconnect the dots,” he explains, as many of these individuals are watching similar, if not identical, Islamist propaganda online. In reality, “They are all connected by the ideology, by the stuff they consume on the internet,” Dr. Gorka explained.

Gorka said the State Department has failed to crack down on Islamist propaganda online—where many American Muslims are recruited—because they ignore that this is about an ideology: radical Islam. We aren’t fighting “extremism” or “terrorism,” Gorka has said. We are fighting people who hold to a particular ideology, which means supporters of the Islamic State don’t need direct orders every time an attack is made against Western targets—civilian or military.

The attack on a gay nightclub is in complete alignment with the ideology of radical Islam. Homosexuality is illegal according to Sharia Law and is punishable by death. Men who have fled the Middle East testify to this fact and have spoken to the United Nations Security Council about the horror of being gay in the Islamic State.

“In my society, being gay means death,” said one Iraqi man, hiding his identity out of fear for his safety.

Another man, Subhi Nahas, said he watched as a group linked to al-Qaeda took control of his hometown of Idlib and systematically tortured and murdered of men who were thought to be gay.

“I was terrified to go out,” he said. “Nor was my home safe, as my father, who suspiciously monitored my every move, had learned I was gay. I bear a scar on my chin as a token of his rage. At the executions, hundreds of townspeople, including children, cheered jubilantly as at a wedding. If a victim did not die after being hurled off a building, the townspeople stoned him to death.”

Given that the Islamic State has already given directives for global jihad, and that supporters are motivated by a shared ideology, it makes logical sense that a “known wolf,” as we seem to have in Orlando, would target a gay nightclub, killing 50 souls who were doing nothing but minding their own business with friends and loved ones. (For more from the author of “Was the Orlando Gunman Really a Lone Wolf?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.